We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Economic Freedom & Deregulation Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Liberal Alliance
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: November 2169
Description[?]:
| - |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on subsidising contraception.
Old value:: The government offers free contraceptives in pharmacies and public toilets.
Current: The government offers free contraceptives in pharmacies and public toilets.
Proposed: The government does not supply free or discounted contraceptives.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on industry and subsidies to industrial operations.
Old value:: The government acts as an investor of last resort, by nationalizing failing industries that provide vital goods or services.
Current: Certain industries are owned by the state, all others are under private ownership.
Proposed: The government does not intervene in the market nor provide any form of subsidies/relief to industries.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Guarantee of minimum income.
Old value:: All adults shall be guaranteed a very basic subsistence income by the government.
Current: All adults shall be guaranteed a very basic subsistence income by the government.
Proposed: All adults not supported by another person shall be guaranteed a very basic subsistence income by the government. However, the provision of this is not to exceed a certain period of time.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The nation's policy on minimum wage regulation.
Old value:: There shall be a minimum wage at a level considered a "living wage," well above the poverty line for a full time worker.
Current: There shall be a minimum wage at a level considered a "living wage," well above the poverty line for a full time worker.
Proposed: There shall be a minimum wage at a level that a single full time worker on it can adequately subsist.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change Pharmaceutical drugs policy.
Old value:: The government pays partially for all citizens' pharmaceutical drugs, and pays entirely for those of low income citizens.
Current: The government pays for all citizens' pharmaceutical drugs.
Proposed: The government subsidises the cost of pharmaceutical drugs for people on low incomes.
Article 6
Proposal[?] to change Funding of public transport (where applicable).
Old value:: Public transport is fully subsidised by the government.
Current: Public transport is fully subsidised by the government.
Proposed: Public transport is fully subsidised for people with low-income, with the remainder "user-pays".
Article 7
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on Democratic Workers' Councils.
Old value:: The government encourages the formation of Democratic Workers' Councils through subsidies and tax exemptions.
Current: Democratic Workers' Councils are not permitted to run a business.
Proposed: The government does not intervene in the marketplace with regards to Democratic Workers' Councils.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:47:58, January 10, 2006 CET | From | Telamon Social Democratic Party | To | Debating the Economic Freedom & Deregulation Bill |
| Message | So basically we 1) should not help citizens to prevent unwanted pregnancies, 2) should not safeguard the production of VITAL goods or services in cases of market failure, 3) should let citizens die when their right to very basic subsistence expires, 4) should reduce the standard of living for many of the workers to the level of merely staying alive, 5) should let more of our citizens die and stay sick due to lack of medication, 6) should not try to reduce the adverse enviromental effects of traffic and 7) should not encourage workers to protect their interests. Happier Telamon, here we come! |
| Date | 19:11:11, January 10, 2006 CET | From | Conservative Party of Telamon | To | Debating the Economic Freedom & Deregulation Bill |
| Message | So basically we 1) should not make things free, and allow stores to give them out for free if they choose, 2) should not screw up the marketplace, 3) should prevent welfare leeches, 4) should encourage people to get an education, so they don't end up getting minimum wage jobs, 5) should only pay for drugs for the poor and not the rich, 6) should let people pay for their own public transport, as to continue the business going, 7) should not care whether a company is run by a DWC or not, Happier Telamon, here we come! |
| Date | 19:36:49, January 10, 2006 CET | From | Rationalist Party | To | Debating the Economic Freedom & Deregulation Bill |
| Message | Would support 2, 3, and 7, four the UCA knows my opinion on |
| Date | 15:49:10, January 11, 2006 CET | From | Telamon Social Democratic Party | To | Debating the Economic Freedom & Deregulation Bill |
| Message | Just a few comments: CPT: 1) should not make things free, and allow stores to give them out for free if they choose, [TSDP: the interests of the state do differ from the interests of individual entrepreneurs. the state is essentially buying a privately provided service to its citizens [rather than nationalising the contraceptives industry as a whole] as unwanted pregnancies do affect the wellbeing of the population.] CPT: 2) should not screw up the marketplace, [TSDP: we are talking about market FAILURE, as can be clearly see from the current legislation. To find an economist who does not believe market failures exist, you have to go to the lunatic fringes of supply side economics.] CPT: 3) should prevent welfare leeches, [TSDP: as we argued earlier, when this amtter was discussed, it also makes economic sense to keep the poor and unemployed alive. And we believe ethics should play a part in governing a country.] [TSDP: As an additional remark: We find it rather interesting, and not altogether unamusing, that the same group that opposes preventing (or helping prevent) unwanted pregnancies, and opposes their termination, trying to safeguard life, is less zealous in protecting the lives of the born (as opposed to the unborn).] CPT: 4) should encourage people to get an education, so they don\'t end up getting minimum wage jobs, [TSDP: as our society only needs the highly educated to work in shops, as cleaners etc.?] CPT: 5) should only pay for drugs for the poor and not the rich, [TSDP: You did support subsidising medication for the poor. Were this bill to pass, some of the poor would live at subsistence level, and thus could not afford even subsidised medication.] CPT: 6) should let people pay for their own public transport, as to continue the business going, [TSDP: The business keeps going as the government pays the costs. we are not forcing private entrepreneurs to provide services for free.] 7) should not care whether a company is run by a DWC or not, [TSDP: DWCs promote equal distribution of incomes and power in society, thus enhancing social cohesion and the overall wellbeing of the nation.] |
| Date | 19:11:55, January 11, 2006 CET | From | United Liberal Alliance | To | Debating the Economic Freedom & Deregulation Bill |
| Message | In response to the TSDP I would just like to make 1 comment with regards to article 3. Although i concede that we do not have a seperate option for disability benefit at present which i hope will change soon, the option is essentially for unemployment benefit. We are attempting to ensure that people who are unemployed are obviously provided with some form of income, whilst making it as unattractive as possible for them to stay on benefits rather than find a job. the government would of course have to provide the unemployed with every assistance in finding a job. |
| Date | 10:49:05, January 12, 2006 CET | From | Telamon Social Democratic Party | To | Debating the Economic Freedom & Deregulation Bill |
| Message | We agree with UCA on the importance of making working attractive. However, as we are committed to keep the population alive, even if they suffer long periods of unemployment, we can not tolerate the right to very basic subsistence expiring after a certain period of time as that clearly indicates that after the period expires, the citizen does not have a right even to subsist. If it were possible, we would support a system that would give income related compensation to the unemployed for a limited period. After that the unemployed would move to a comprehensive system that guarantees a reasonable standard of living. And as a clarification we must point out, that you have indeed not attempted "to ensure that people who are unemployed are obviously provided with some form of income" but that "people who are unemployed are provided with some form of income for a limited period of time" which is naturally utterly different. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 105 | |||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 250 | |||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In general, role-play requires the consent of all players. |
| Random quote: "If homosexuality is a disease, let's all call in queer to work. 'Hello. Can't work today; still queer.'" - Robin Tyler |